Should West Virginia join the ACC, the Mountaineers and revive several rivalries from their old Big East days, like Pittsburgh and their Backyard Brawl, or with Syracuse or Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech, and possibly Notre Dame.
Sure, I'd let them go if I was in charge, but I'm not and they can't until 2025 assuming they have an invite.
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Impressive OOC scheduling has been an option, but what's available in-conference is a sticking label.
True, but where inter-conference rivalries reside (think the Notre Dame games and the ACC-SEC rivalries), it's added substance for both conferences. The Big XII has had a way of burning a lot of bridges with programs now outside of the conference though once within. The sort of "spite" that emerges once splitting company, it's been really bad on the Big XII. UT-TAMU, OU-UNL, KU-MU, Pitt-WVU, TCU-Utah/BYU...the only things going for the conference on a yearly basis are games like ISU-Iowa.
You have a valid point but, A&M and Mizzou screwed over the conference, and both Texas and Kansas said if you leave its over and they did after both pledging their loyalty to the conference less than a year before. And before any start the LHN stuff, that was clearly jst an excuse as FOIA showed that A&M never stopped talking to the SEC, even on the day they made their loyalty pledge. Mizzou didn't have to leave even then, the SEC could have taken WVU, but after everyone running their mouths off about the Big Ten a year before they really REALLY wanted to save face and get out of dodge.
A&M was easily replaced by TCU (not saying its the same, just that they filled right in with no issues) but Mizzou really put the Big 12 in a bind, with no other realistic candidates nearby (Lville, WVU, BYU). So to say that the Big 12 burned those bridges is disengenuous a best when it was really A&M/Mizzou burning the bridges.
And BTW I don't think OU/NU are the same as UT/A&M or KU/MU, most would be in favor of OU/NU being an annual game again but I think Nebraska is trying to distance its self from the Big 12. I don't think many Big 12 fans hold much of a grudge against them (though they were the one's who opened the floodgates) because Colorado was likely gone at that point anyways.
O and TCU/UTah or TCU/BYU or TCU/BSU was never really a rivalry, they were just all dominate programs in the same conference, it takes more than that to really classify it as a rivalry.
Appreciate the comments, tkalmus.
I see where Texas AD, DeLoss Dodds has announced he'll be retiring. This is in addition to the on-going pressure on Mac Brown. The two circumstances may not be directly related.
So, Texas shall be having multiple personnel changes. Texas shall seek to maintain their top revenue stream, yet they have to be assessing if the current B12 situation is best for them in the long-run. I wonder if ESPN's investment with the LHN shall be sustained. That's so much programming to fill based on one school, though they have tried to branch into some level of auxiliary coverage that serves the basic objective.
Does the B12 really offer Texas what it needs in terms of future high profile games? While the Oklahoma rivalry is marquee, and OSU has been appreciable competition; the in-state competition with TTU, Baylor, and TCU doesn't generally match the greater interest that was shown in the long series with T A&M (and valued games with UN & Mizzou, when ranked, showed decent national appeal). However though, TTU, Balyor, and TCU are showing ranked success. Many talk about Texas being a big winner in the current B12 configuration due to protection mechanisms of their financial assets. However, I believe the biggest winners in all this are TTU, Balyor, and TCU----not because they draw revenue on the level Texas does (which they don't), but because another situation would offer them so much less.
ISU, KSU, OSU, and KU for the most part, are also thankful they remain in the more northern reaches of this power conference with a rivalry group, given that greater options have not been presented. And WVU, despite the travel and geographic isolation, knows it's the best situation available to them for now.
I have to believe there are basically only three schools in the B12 that can produce a real game changer. Texas and Oklahoma are the obvious two. Kansas is the third, particularly as it would most impact the northern tier of the conference.
If WVU would leave, the B12 may not care that much because of their location. Others, outside Tx, OU, and KU, initiating leaving on their own, just would not happen.
Impressive OOC scheduling has been an option, but what's available in-conference is a sticking label. Granted, the B12 has some very fine schools that are athletically successful in multiple dimensions. But does Texas, and a couple of others, see this "collection" as whom they most want to play in multiple sports, year in and year out?
Again, there are at least 3 that may have the opportunity to ponder the question, seriously, down the road.
I'm running late for a meeting but these are great points/questions that I'll address later today/tonight, but quickly let me just say that not only has UT's conference schedule gone downhill with the loss of the 4 former Big 12 schools, but also the loss of the divisional format is forcing UT to play KU/KSU/ISU/WVU every year instead of 2 out of 4 years. Its getting old quick, and while I would enjoy getting home/homes with KU every year (if our bball program could win again) most fans don't enjoy it. But I'll go into more detail later.
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...